PonceAlyosha:Actually, he didn't. He line item veto'd it and was overridden by the legislature.

Incorrect. He line item vetoed 8 revisions of the plan made by the state legislature, not health care generally. The revisions, by the way, all centered around making sure poor and disabled people had adequate coverage, and ensuring corporations that didn't provide reasonable plans would have to pay a penalty. It ain't exactly a bragging point.

Jim_Callahan:ghare: Daddy said I could be President! And I was born rich! Why do I have to go through this election thing with all those commoners being allowed to have a say?

To be fair, actual Romney is a boring, but not really objectionable politician. He'd not be the most stellar dude to hold the job ever, but as governor he's demonstrated that he's moderately competent, good at balancing the various interests involved in majority and consensus government and mediating disputes, and generally of opinions and positions that would be called centrist in the US (pro-abortion but not entirely comfortably so due to religious concerns, in favor of a semi-private version of universal health care, not terribly hawkish or Dovish).

The problem with this election is that those are all things that Obama does better (he's more pro-abortion, more genuinely devout on a personal level, better at working across the aisle, and has an actual demonstrated foreign policy record as well as domestic policy positions that are for the most part dead farking center on the US spectrum). So candidate Romney is playing the hard-line party man instead of staying governor Romney.

And he's farking terrible at it. None of the religious nuts actually buys the act, the center has gained a massive mistrust of him they didn't necessarily have before, and the left is casually pointing out that who he's pretending to be combined with his pre-gubernatorial CV doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture no matter your political stripe, then putting their hands in their pockets and wandering off whistling nonchalantly.

Of course, Ryan is another matter. He'd sink the ticket Palin-style even if Romney was actually playing his home game, the same retard policies aren't going to sell as any less retarded to the public just because the speaker is better at lipsticking the pig with pseudointellectual bullshiat. That worked before the most popular news sources (the internet, comedy shows, aggregators) compressed everyt ...

You know, the sad part is that Romney actually does have the good sense to compromise and work both sides of the aisle. The problem is that he has had to sell his soul to the Republican Party in order to get into this position so there is a lot of collateral damage that has been done. Romney has shown that he can govern from both sides, but part of the problem is that no one knows when he is serious or when he is trying to make a political point. If he wasn't so beholden to the Republican Party tea partiers, he might have been able to sell himself as a uniter. The Republican Party is so set on ideological purity that compromise is almost impossible. Real shame.

If the Republican Party had used 2010 to bring up the deficit issue and economy and offering real solutions instead of relying on the welfare queen myth, they probably could have attracted more reasonable, thoughtful and less radical voters. They could have opened up their tent and backed off divisive social issues. Instead, they doubled down on the derp and went the way of the Kenyan usurper and now look like the party of crazy people.

ghare:Sabyen91: TheJoe03: McCain/Palin might have been bad but McCain was at least respectable in certain ways, unlike the clowns on the 2012 GOP ticket. Kerry and Dole didn't even campaign this poorly, what the hell are they thinking?

It is his turn though, dammit!

Daddy said I could be President! And I was born rich! Why do I have to go through this election thing with all those commoners being allowed to have a say?

Reminds me of this quote from the Simpsons:Mr. Burns: Ironic, isn't it, Smithers? This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election. And yet, if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.

Jim_Callahan:To be fair, actual Romney is a boring, but not really objectionable politician. He'd not be the most stellar dude to hold the job ever, but as governor he's demonstrated that he's moderately competent, good at balancing the various interests involved in majority and consensus government and mediating disputes, and generally of opinions and positions that would be called centrist in the US (pro-abortion but not entirely comfortably so due to religious concerns, in favor of a semi-private version of universal health care, not terribly hawkish or Dovish).

The problem with this election is that those are all things that Obama does better (he's more pro-abortion, more genuinely devout on a personal level, better at working across the aisle, and has an actual demonstrated foreign policy record as well as domestic policy positions that are for the most part dead farking center on the US spectrum). So candidate Romney is playing the hard-line party man instead of staying governor Romney.

Agreed. I'd add that if Romney were President, even if he shared the same goals as Obama, Romney would need to pander to the far right to accomplish any goals. Obama doesn't have that burden.

You've never been to his district. They LOVE him. Waukesha County cares about one thing. "Does it piss of them liebruls?"

/Wish I was joking

Yup. I work the polls (not the poles!) in Wisconsin (Dodge County). I went for some training when the whole voter registration issue. I was in the class with several people from Waukesha County. We couldn't even have reasonable debate on voter id laws. They were derped with extra derp sauce. It was very frustrating.

Haven't delved into all the nuances but it seems to me Standard & Poor's and Moody's would be giddy if the fiscal cliff happened. Taxes would go up, spending would go down, theoretically the deficit would be reduced- isn't that what they want? I'm not saying I agree with it, but I just don't understand.

Snarky Acronym:Haven't delved into all the nuances but it seems to me Standard & Poor's and Moody's would be giddy if the fiscal cliff happened. Taxes would go up, spending would go down, theoretically the deficit would be reduced- isn't that what they want? I'm not saying I agree with it, but I just don't understand.

s&P relies on how scared and greedy they think people are, not what's actually happening.

Sabyen91:TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

Grand_Moff_Joseph:Of course, let's not forget that Ryan voted against the debt commission's plan, which led to the existence of the sequester that he just voted for. AND he voted against all attempts to pass a budget, leading to the stop-gap measure that he just voted FOR.

Where wolf:Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

A "grasp" of economics that says we should spend money we don't have on war toys we don't need so some asshole can have a make-work job? Yeah - that's a typical engineers "grasp" of something utterly outside his field. I swear to god you people are nearly as arrogant as doctors.

Where wolf:Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

You'll never see cuts to the correct programs as long as congressmen needed the pork to get relected.

Feel bad for him! He is in danger of losing the only job he has ever known with this VP run. Supported by the public for years, yet somehow an expert on telling other people what they should do with their business, he might have trouble finding a real world job unless there is a company that wants someone to come in and tell them that they are doing everything wrong no matter what it is.

jso2897:Where wolf: Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

A "grasp" of economics that says we should spend money we don't have on war toys we don't need so some asshole can have a make-work job? Yeah - that's a typical engineers "grasp" of something utterly outside his field. I swear to god you people are nearly as arrogant as doctors.

I was going to say the same thing. I'm an engineer and I know I do it too, but that just means I can recognize when other people do it. Engineers do it all the time.

House Republicans Tuesday took another stab Tuesday at avoiding the automatic cuts for defense, passing a bill that orders President Barack Obama to submit a plan to protect military spending by October 15 without any revenue increases.The measure, approved on a party line vote of 223-196, faces certain death in the U.S. Senate and has drawn a veto threat from the White House.

He should urge Dems to pass it, then submit a plan that defunds Congress and every federal program in the districts of every Republican who voted for it.

Snarky Acronym:Haven't delved into all the nuances but it seems to me Standard & Poor's and Moody's would be giddy if the fiscal cliff happened. Taxes would go up, spending would go down, theoretically the deficit would be reduced- isn't that what they want? I'm not saying I agree with it, but I just don't understand.

Finance is terrified of the Bush tax cuts being rolled back. Taxes on cap gains and dividends don't raise much money, but they matter a lot to investors. And raising them for social justice is important to leftists, despite how counterproductive it is for every other purpose. Cap gain taxes exist to discourage investment while barely raising money, as in America today fairness trumps efficiency in government policy priorities. Plus, combine that with spending cuts on a large scale and you have a tanked stock market.

Where wolf:Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

If the government has to spend less money on something, why not cut the defense budget? We can pay some defense contracter to make an unneeded 2nd engine for an unneeded new plane, and sure he'll make money. But how does that plane go on to improve the quality of life for anyone?

On the other hand, we can take that same amount of money and hire a metric fark-ton of teachers. They'll get paid, and educate a new generation of citizens, who can then go on to get better and more productive jobs.

Face it, of all the things that the government could spend a buck on, you couldn't find something that would give less return on investment or do as little to get us out of a recession as building a few more brand spanking shiny new bombs.

Karac:Where wolf: Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

If the government has to spend less money on something, why not cut the defense budget? We can pay some defense contracter to make an unneeded 2nd engine for an unneeded new plane, and sure he'll make money. But how does that plane go on to improve the quality of life for anyone?

On the other hand, we can take that same amount of money and hire a metric fark-ton of teachers. They'll get paid, and educate a new generation of citizens, who can then go on to get better and more productive jobs.

Face it, of all the things that the government could spend a buck on, you couldn't find something that would give less return on investment or do as little to get us out of a recession as building a few more brand spanking shiny new bombs.

And here's the problem: the cuts won't come from development programs. It will come from sustainment money, keeping 30 year old aircraft flying so we can retire some of the tails from the 60s.

I don't want to build f35s, i just want to make life easier for kids bending wrenches in the desert.

Here'sJohnny:Snarky Acronym: Haven't delved into all the nuances but it seems to me Standard & Poor's and Moody's would be giddy if the fiscal cliff happened. Taxes would go up, spending would go down, theoretically the deficit would be reduced- isn't that what they want? I'm not saying I agree with it, but I just don't understand.

Finance is terrified of the Bush tax cuts being rolled back. Taxes on cap gains and dividends don't raise much money, but they matter a lot to investors. And raising them for social justice is important to leftists, despite how counterproductive it is for every other purpose. Cap gain taxes exist to discourage investment while barely raising money, as in America today fairness trumps efficiency in government policy priorities. Plus, combine that with spending cuts on a large scale and you have a tanked stock market.

Capital gains do not exist to discourage investment. They exist because it's a form of income. Why should Romney pay less taxes than me for the money he earns? Because it came through stocks? How does the amount it raises have to do with anything?

Fairness trumps efficiency? Yes of course it does. Hell, it would be really efficient to just get rid of civil rights laws and let businesses discriminate on religion and race again, but libertarianism is stupid and unfair.

Are you insane? Capital gains taxes are distinct from and, in some cases, lower than income taxes in order to encourage long term investment. Personally, I think capital gains taxes should be done away with and both capital gains and carried interest taxed as income (which they are).

TheJoe03:McCain/Palin might have been bad but McCain was at least respectable in certain ways, unlike the clowns on the 2012 GOP ticket. Kerry and Dole didn't even campaign this poorly, what the hell are they thinking?

That they can campaign this poorly and still garner 45-48% of the vote?

Are you insane? Capital gains taxes are distinct from and, in some cases, lower than income taxes in order to encourage long term investment. Personally, I think capital gains taxes should be done away with and both capital gains and carried interest taxed as income (which they are).

Having lower capital gains taxes discourages long term investment and encourages short term investment. Having lower tax means that you can churn your investments more frequently. If the tax were higher, and matched other forms of income, you would invest for longer periods and also might consider other forms of investment that would create jobs. The rich would not just sit on their money, not matter what the tax rate was, you still want to make more money.

KarmicDisaster:Having lower capital gains taxes discourages long term investment and encourages short term investment. Having lower tax means that you can churn your investments more frequently. If the tax were higher, and matched other forms of income, you would invest for longer periods and also might consider other forms of investment that would create jobs. The rich would not just sit on their money, not matter what the tax rate was, you still want to make more money.

How the fark does having lower tax rates on long term investments encourage churn in your investments? Did I wake up in Bizarro world this morning?

The bolded bit is precisely why I think all carried interest and capital gains should be taxed as income. The wealthy aren't going to put cash into a coffee can, it's going to be invested if only to protect its value from inflation.

Where wolf:Karac: Where wolf: Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

If the government has to spend less money on something, why not cut the defense budget? We can pay some defense contracter to make an unneeded 2nd engine for an unneeded new plane, and sure he'll make money. But how does that plane go on to improve the quality of life for anyone?

On the other hand, we can take that same amount of money and hire a metric fark-ton of teachers. They'll get paid, and educate a new generation of citizens, who can then go on to get better and more productive jobs.

Face it, of all the things that the government could spend a buck on, you couldn't find something that would give less return on investment or do as little to get us out of a recession as building a few more brand spanking shiny new bombs.

And here's the problem: the cuts won't come from development programs. It will come from sustainment money, keeping 30 year old aircraft flying so we can retire some of the tails ...

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

I did indeed work for one of the "enemy" corporations that WinoRhino mentioned above. As I mentioned, defense work was the smaller (and already shrinking) part of what we did. I was IT/Tool support and most of the groups I assisted were working on biz jets and airliners. To sort the serious from the sarcasm:

Serious - Defense and defense related corps are over-reacting to this. They always do this, and the end result will be that the more evil and efficient ones will fill the gaping holes in their staffing by hiring younger and cheaper workers (and the mangers will get bonuses) and the less competent ones will hire back the people they let go as contractors and pay them twice as much (and the managers will still probably get bonuses).

Sarcasm - My lament that we might fall to (gasp) per-2009 defense budget numbers. With the Iraq wind down, that shouldn't be so hard to do. Might actually require good accounting and budget management though, so I don't give it very good odds of working out easy.

You Decide - To make Sabyen91 happy, I'm going to pimp out my wife, sell me kids to a Republican as household labor and find a nice bridge to move under to atone for all the pain those navigation units in those airliners caused. Think of all those poor mountains they didn't hit.

So the teatards were elected to CUTCUTCUTCUT, but now that cuts - which many of them voted for - appear imminent, they're complaining about the cuts?

I thought the whole point was that they were setting a target ($1.2T) and a deadline (end of this year) and were going to work sometime in the last year to do something to avoid it. It's like when you sign a contract, and a day before the end of the term, one of the signors is like "WTF! I have to produce a whole 100-page report on the entirety of the work I've done in a single day?! How unfair!"

Morons - you had all the time in the world to do something, but wanding vaginas was more important. Go sit in the corner.

// of course, they won't// they'll cry and scream about how the big bad Democrats want to make our country less safe// farking George "Macaca" Allen is running an attack ad against Connolly for voting for this bill - farking George "Macaca" Allen would have voted for it twice

TommyDeuce:Serious - Defense and defense related corps are over-reacting to this. They always do this, and the end result will be that the more evil and efficient ones will fill the gaping holes in their staffing by hiring younger and cheaper workers (and the mangers will get bonuses) and the less competent ones will hire back the people they let go as contractors and pay them twice as much (and the managers will still probably get bonuses).

Monkeyhouse Zendo:TommyDeuce: Serious - Defense and defense related corps are over-reacting to this. They always do this, and the end result will be that the more evil and efficient ones will fill the gaping holes in their staffing by hiring younger and cheaper workers (and the mangers will get bonuses) and the less competent ones will hire back the people they let go as contractors and pay them twice as much (and the managers will still probably get bonuses).

Welcome to capitalism.

Oh, I know. And I don't really think it will change much. At this point, while I'd love to get back into a "full time with bennies" job, I'm looking pretty hard at going the "big dollar contractor" option. The travel would be a pain, but some of the stuff I'm specialized in is uncommon enough and critical enough that it allows for "So how much money have you got" pricing when setting the contract rates. The kind of stuff that if someone's screwed it up bad enough to bring in a contractor, they've probably already missed a deadline, and are just trying to get back on track.

Either that or go do some honest work, maybe the Romney campaign is hiring. Pretty sire I'm better qualified then most of his staff.

MaudlinMutantMollusk:Grand_Moff_Joseph: Of course, let's not forget that Ryan voted against the debt commission's plan, which led to the existence of the sequester that he just voted for. AND he voted against all attempts to pass a budget, leading to the stop-gap measure that he just voted FOR.

Truly, a man of conviction that should be convicted.

FTFY

/criminal hypocrisy

o/~ Right wing rulersLike the Norths and NixonsWouldn't fool usThey're men of convictions o/~

Monkeyhouse Zendo:KarmicDisaster: Having lower capital gains taxes discourages long term investment and encourages short term investment. Having lower tax means that you can churn your investments more frequently. If the tax were higher, and matched other forms of income, you would invest for longer periods and also might consider other forms of investment that would create jobs. The rich would not just sit on their money, not matter what the tax rate was, you still want to make more money.

How the fark does having lower tax rates on long term investments encourage churn in your investments? Did I wake up in Bizarro world this morning?

The bolded bit is precisely why I think all carried interest and capital gains should be taxed as income. The wealthy aren't going to put cash into a coffee can, it's going to be invested if only to protect its value from inflation.

I fully agree on taxing it as income. People are still going to invest. As for the other part, I was going to post some detailed examples, but I have stuff to do. So here is the abbreviated version:

As an investor, I am constantly managing my tax burden. That's how Romney pays (he says, who knows) 13% (although he appears to have hidden a lot off the books). Because of that, I want to manage my capital gains, controlling when I sell profitable stocks (in my case) so that I don't take all my capital gains on profits all in one year. Instead, I try to smooth out the gains, which means holding some things longer while taking offsetting losses when I need them. Losses come off at 100% (socialize the risk hehe) A lower tax rate on gains though means that I can afford to sell more profitable stocks per year. If taxes were higher and I wanted to pay the same tax, I would have bigger consequences for taking a capital gain and would hold things longer. That means that I can churn my portfolio more than if taxes were higher; I can sell something that was profitable and re-invest in something more profitable with less consequence. For traded companies, that means that they have to take a short term view for their stock; so they fire 1000 for short term gain today when that will hurt them in 5 years. So lower gains tax actually encourages more focus on immediate profit and shorter term investing.

TheMysticS:gothelder: Sabyen91: Oh, cool, shotglasss is here. I have been looking for him so I can ignore his pointless ass.

Except you chose not to by mentioning him in your post.....

dumbass.

Lol whut?

He's talking about the ignore function.

Dumbass

Wow, they did not mention shotglass and how proud they are at ignoring them in the same sentence?

And I have them farkied as "totally retarded" Guess I will need to farkie your dumb ass as beyond totally retarded as you apparently do not know that ignoring somebody generally does not involve acknowledging them in any way.

Sheeze the stupidity around here is amazing, I am guessing you ate a asston of lead paint chips in your youth.

Come on gridlock! We want Sequesteration and those dam tax cuts to expire! Why, because it is my firm believe that the Republicans will only become rational and reasonable after we fall off those two cliffs.

PanicMan:jso2897: Where wolf: Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

A "grasp" of economics that says we should spend money we don't have on war toys we don't need so some asshole can have a make-work job? Yeah - that's a typical engineers "grasp" of something utterly outside his field. I swear to god you people are nearly as arrogant as doctors.

I was going to say the same thing. I'm an engineer and I know I do it too, but that just means I can recognize when other people do it. Engineers do it all the time.

Where wolf:Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

Hey, if we're going to have make-work programs, let's not have make-work programs that pay a bunch of nerds six figure salaries to sit around and twiddling their thumbs half the day, and half the day taking forever in committee to build a bunch of shiat we don't need.

Instead, let's have make-work programs that employ twice as many people at $50k a year rebuilding, repairing, and upgrading infrastructure that we ACTUALLY USE.

gothelder:TheMysticS: gothelder: Sabyen91: Oh, cool, shotglasss is here. I have been looking for him so I can ignore his pointless ass.

Except you chose not to by mentioning him in your post.....

dumbass.

Lol whut?

He's talking about the ignore function.

Dumbass

Wow, they did not mention shotglass and how proud they are at ignoring them in the same sentence?

And I have them farkied as "totally retarded" Guess I will need to farkie your dumb ass as beyond totally retarded as you apparently do not know that ignoring somebody generally does not involve acknowledging them in any way.

Sheeze the stupidity around here is amazing, I am guessing you ate a asston of lead paint chips in your youth.

/it shows......dumbass.

Being insulted by you is not anything I care about. You're a troll. You're here to be an asshole. It's obvious that, like the rest of your kind, nuance and meaning are hard to grasp.

But, of course, regarding ignoring someone yet mentioning them in the same sentence-and pointing that out-makes you technically right. And we all know that's the best kind of right.

Generally, as you said.Whoops. I guess you contradicted yourself there, as well.Well, sheeze.(which I had to add to my autocomplete, because it's apparently not in the dictionary. Let's see if sheesh is in there- oh, look! Three letters in and it's the first choice.)

I guess my second paragraph is therefore invalid. Must have been all those paint chips. Since you made the same error, maybe some introspection is in order.

Jim_Callahan:Grand_Moff_Joseph: Of course, let's not forget that Ryan voted against the debt commission's plan, which led to the existence of the sequester that he just voted for. AND he voted against all attempts to pass a budget, leading to the stop-gap measure that he just voted FOR.

Truly, a man of conviction.

There's a reason why he's literally the only guy the Romney campaign could get to run for VP. He's the only one that's a bad enough politician that being on a sinking ship rearranging deck chairs is a step up for his rep.